An overview of important court decisions affecting workplace rights. Updated weekly.
Select a court circuit from the map below or from this list.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
Simmons v. N.Y. City Transit Authority (No. 08-4079)
Decision Date: August 3, 2009
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, district court judgment is vacated and remanded where the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff's based on the prevailing hourly rates in the district where her counsel was based, rather than where the suit was litigated, as plaintiff did not satisfy the exception to the forum rule for attorney's fees.
Sousa v. Roque (No. 07-1892)
Decision Date: August 21, 2009
In an action by a public employee claiming that defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for reporting workplace violence, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the speaker's motive is not dispositive of whether the speech is on a matter of public concern.
Halpert v. Manhattan Apts., Inc. (No. 07-4074)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action regarding a statement by a third party retained by defendant that plaintiff was too old for the position at issue, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties, including independent contractors, that the employer authorizes to make hiring decisions on its behalf.
Seidemann v. Bowen (No. 08-3922)
Decision Date: October 15, 2009
In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union'! s employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.
Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ. (No. 07-4567)
Decision Date: October 23, 2009
In a gender and age discrimination action by an employee of a university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to produce evidence of an express or implied contract to continue her employment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) in the circumstances here, a non-renewal of an employment contract itself was an adverse employment action and the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to show the existence of an unofficial tenured position to satisfy the adverse action requirement; and 2) the circumstances surrounding the non-renewal of her contract gave rise to an inference of age or gender discrimination.
Wilson v. CIA (No. 07-4244)
Decision Date: November 12, 2009
In a First Amendment action claiming that the CIA was required to allow former employee Valerie Plame Wilson to publish a memoir about her tenure at the agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, and not the agency, permitted the classified information at issue to be revealed to the public; and 2) further, the public disclosure did not deprive the information of classified status, and the agency demonstrated good reason for adhering to its classification decision. A former CIA agent cannot use her own unauthorized disclosure of classified information to challenge the CIA's ability to maintain the information as classified.
EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (08-5348)
Decision Date: November 19, 2009
In the EEOC′s appeal from a denial of its petition to enforce an administrative subpoena issued to UPS seeking information about how religious exemptions to UPS′s Uniform and Personal Appearance Guidelines were handled nationwide, the order is reversed where the district court, in finding that national information was not relevant to the charges being investigated by the EEOC, applied too restrictive a standard of relevance.
Duch v. Jakubek (No. 07-3503)
Decision Date: December 4, 2009
In a sex discrimination action claiming that defendant-supervisor should have prevented the harassment of plaintiff taking place, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff was not deprived of all reasonable avenues of complaint; and 2) defendants could not be liable based on information that plaintiff requested be kept confidential but which was conveyed to a co-worker. However, the order is reversed in part where a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer defendants: 1) knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, of the harassment directed at plaintiff; and 2) failed to take appropriate remedial action.
Reiseck v. Universal Comms. of Miami, Inc. (No. 09-1632)
Decision Date: January 11, 2010
In an action alleging sex discrimination and failure to pay overtime wages, summary judgment for defendants is vacated in part and the matter is remanded where, because plaintiff's primary duty was the sale of advertising space, she was properly considered a "salesperson" for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and therefore did not fall under the administrative exemption to the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA.
Hanrahan v. Riverside Nursing Home (No. 09-0585)
Decision Date: January 25, 2010
In an employment discrimination action, the dismissal of the complaint based on the res judicata effect of a prior state administrative proceeding is vacated where the state court's dismissal was not a decision on the merits that would preclude the filing of a renewed state court action.
DeRosa v. Nat'l. Envelope Corp. (No. 08-2562)
Decision Date: February 17, 2010
In an action alleging discrimination on account of a medical disability, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where plaintiff's statements on his job application did not judicially estop him from bringing his Americans with Disabilities Act claim because those statements did not contradict plaintiff's position on the critical issue of whether he was able to fulfill the essential functions of his employment with reasonable accommodation
Spiegel v. Schulmann (No. 06-5914)
Decision Date: May 6, 2010
In an action claiming that defendants violated the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws by terminating plaintiffs as karate instructors, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court properly concluded that there is no individual liability for retaliation claims brought under the ADA; and 2) the district court correctly determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to consider in the first instance whether obesity was a disability under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Zakrzewska v. The New School (No. 09-0611)
Decision Date: June 22, 2010
In a sexual harassment action, following the New York Court of Appeals\' answer to a certified question, a denial of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the affirmative defense to employer liability articulated in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), does not apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code.
Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse (No. 08-2436)
Decision Date: July 1, 2010
In an action alleging racial discrimination by a city fire department, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the record did not establish as a matter of law that the city's continued reliance on racial considerations in the hiring of firefighters was justified by a prior consent decree.
In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig. (No. 09-0437)
Decision Date: July 6, 2010
In an action by pharmaceutical company salespersons for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), summary judgment for defendant is vacated where, under the Department of Labor's regulations, the salespersons were not outside salesmen or administrative employees for purposes of the FLSA.
Henry v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc. (No. 08-1477-cv)
Decision Date: August 4, 2010
In an action for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, although a reasonable juror could certainly have considered certain remarks by plaintiff's colleagues discriminatory, they have little probative value in the context of the case. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court's instruction on causation was erroneous because a causal connection was sufficiently demonstrated if the agent who decides to impose the adverse action but is ignorant of the plaintiff's protected activity acts pursuant to encouragement by a superior (who has knowledge) to disfavor the plaintiff.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC (No. 08-1865)
Decision Date: August 11, 2009
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination under state law as she put forth evidence that defendant regarded plaintiff as handicapped, that she was still able to perform the essential functions of the job despite the handicap, and that she suffered an adverse employment action as a result of her handicap; and 2) a reasonable jury could find that the removal of plaintiff from the work schedule was predicated on impermissible discrimination rather than a permissible legitimate concern about her ability to perform the job safely.
Velez v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc. (No. 08-1320)
Decision Date: October 16, 2009
In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded as, under the three stage burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), several aspects of the evidence, taken together, are more than sufficient to support a factfinder's conclusion that defendant was motivated by age-based discrimination, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.
Calvao v. Town of Framingham (No. 09-1648)
Decision Date: March 17, 2010
In police officers' putative class action suit against a town claiming that the town failed to pay them sufficient overtime in violation of the FLSA, district court's grant of partial summary judgment holding that the town met the eligibility requirements for the public safety exception is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' argument that the town was required to notify affected employees before establishing a valid work period under section 207(k) is rejected; 2) the text of the statute, as well as caselaw, confirm that a public employer need only establish a section 207(k) compliant work period to claim the exemption's benefits without explicitly giving notice to affected employees, and here, the town has done so and is entitled to judgment; and 3) plaintiffs' claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to strike certain evidence is rejected.
Rosario v. Dep't of the Army (No. 08-2168)
Decision Date: June 2, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against the Department of the Army and others, claiming that sexual harassment by her co-worker at an Army medical clinic subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is vacated and remanded as a reasonably jury could find that plaintiff met her burden to show conduct that created a hostile work environment within the meaning of Title VII.
Galera v. Johanns (No. 08-2435)
Decision Date: July 14, 2010
In plaintiff's suit for retaliation under Title VII against the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, claiming that the USDA engaged in discriminatory employment and recruitment practices against him in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as plaintiff's claims are barred as the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred prior to the effective date of the parties' settlement agreement, and the agreement complied with the relevant regulation.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee
Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 08-3246)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action claiming that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff on the basis of her race and sex, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's claim of mistake was a pretext for race discrimination; but reversed in part, where the combination of close temporal proximity between an employers heightened scrutiny and plaintiff's filing of an EEOC charge is sufficient to establish the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Hunter v. Valley View Local Schs. (No. 08-4109)
Decision Date: August 26, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer impermissibly considered plaintiff's use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave in deciding to place her on involuntary leave, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was an issue of material fact as to whether the FMLA leave was a motivating factor in defendant's decision.
Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children (No. 08-5538)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
In an action under the First Amendment and various employment statutes challenging defendant-Baptist Homes for Children's policy of firing and not hiring gay and lesbian employees, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the termination of plaintiff based on her sexual orientation did not constitute discrimination on account of religion. However, the ruling is reversed in part where plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated standing as state taxpayers for their Establishment Clause challenge.
Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't (08-1883)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. (No. 09-1134)
Decision Date: March 9, 2010
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district courts grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
Spengler v. Worthington Cylinder (No. 08-3110)
Decision Date: July 27, 2010
In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio's anti-discrimination statute, district court's denial of defendant's Rule 50(b) motion and jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in allowing plaintiff's case to proceed to trial as the language in plaintiff's EEOC charge sets forth sufficient facts to put the EEOC on notice of plaintiff's retaliation claim despite his failure to check the "Retaliation" box on the charge; 2) plaintiff's judicial complaint set forth facts establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under the ADEA; 3) the totality of the evidence in the record does not lead reasonable minds to but one conclusion in favor of the defendant on the retaliation claim; 4) because plaintiff established the amount of his damages and defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was not entitled to those damages, damages were properly awarded; and 5) the jury could have reasonably concluded that the supervisor's conduct was willful and therefore, liquidated damages were warranted.
Spees v. James Marine, Inc. (No. 09-5839)
Decision Date: August 10, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer and its subsidiary for pregnancy and disability discrimination, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's transfer claim as a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff's transfer to the tool room constituted an adverse employment action; 2) summary judgment was proper on plaintiff's pregnancy-discrimination claim based on plaintiff's termination; 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on plaintiff's ADA claim to the extent it is based on the tool-room transfer; and 4) district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's disability claim based on her termination as plaintiff has presented no evidence that defendant regarded her as having an impairment that precluded her from working in the tool room.
White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. (No. 09-5626)
Decision Date: August 11, 2010
In plaintiff's sexual harassment suit against her former employers seeking $250,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on a claim of judicial estoppel is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff asserted a position before the bankruptcy court that was contrary to the position that she asserted before the district court as she did not disclose her sexual harassment claim against defendants in her initial bankruptcy filings; 2) plaintiff had a motive to conceal and knowledge of the factual basis of her harassment claim; and 3) the evidence plaintiff presented of her attempts to advise the bankruptcy court and the trustee of her harassment claim does not excuse her initial omission.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming
DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Mgmt. Corp. (No. 08-4034)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action alleging that Defendant improperly terminated Plaintiff while she was on medical leave, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the intent necessary for religious discrimination; but reversed in part, where there were many reasons to question Defendants' evidence regarding the alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination.
Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy (No. 08-1325)
Decision Date: April 21, 2010
In an action alleging that violated plaintiffs\' First Amendment rights while they were employed at defendant school by unlawfully prohibiting them from meeting together to discuss school matters and retaliating against them when they did so, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) there was no authority suggesting that an employer who expressed a preference regarding employee association thereby imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint; 2) controlling precedent would not have put a reasonable administrator on notice that the speech at each meeting at issue, viewed in the aggregate, was protected by the First Amendment; and 3) the record does not support the conclusion that the school board ratified plaintiffs\' supervisor\'s directives on employee speech. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there was no support for imposing the requirement that a government employee request clarification or complain to his supervisor before being permitted to file a complaint challenging his employer's speech restrictions.
Rodriguez v. Wet Ink, LLC (No. 08-1313)
Decision Date: April 26, 2010
In an employment discrimination suit against plaintiff's former employer, summary judgment for defendant on the ground that the action was time-barred is reversed where the state anti-discrimination agency's notice in this case did not trigger the 90-day limitation period for purposes of filing a federal action under Title VII, because nothing in the worksharing agreement between the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) and the EEOC, or relevant case law, supported defendant's view that the CCRD could issue right-to-sue notices on behalf of the EEOC.
Wilkerson v. Shinseki (No. 09-8027)
Decision Date: June 2, 2010
In an action claiming that plaintiff\'s reassignment discriminated against him based on his obesity and diabetes, and that age discrimination played a role in his reassignment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to hold the position as required by the Rehabilitation Act; 2) defendant had a non-discriminatory reason for removing plaintiff that was not pretextual; and 3) plaintiff did not allege that the accessing of his health records was intentional misconduct, as required by the Privacy Act.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc. (No. 08-3721)
Decision Date: August 20, 2009
In an employment-discrimination case, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant on grounds that the plaintiff failed to timely file a charge with the EEOC is vacated and remanded where defendant failed to show absence of a genuine factual dispute over whether plaintiff's charge had been timely filed via fax where it was not the plaintiff who had to prove receipt, but the defendant who had to prove the absence of receipt - the fax confirmation creates a factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset (No. 09-1853)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's lawsuit against her former employer claiming that school district failed to accommodate her seasonal effective disorder and constructively discharged her in violation of the ADA, judgment of the district court is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim is reversed as plaintiff satisfied all three elements required for the claim; and 2) summary judgment on the constructive-discharge claim was proper as plaintiff failed to show that the conditions of her employment even approached the intolerable levels normally required in constructive-discharge cases.
Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc. (No. 07-3183)
Decision Date: October 22, 2009
In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the disability-discrimination claim is remanded as, although plaintiff's impairments are not sufficient to show that he is disabled, the record contains adequate evidence to support a theory that defendant regarded him as being disabled in the major life activities of walking, caring for himself, and speaking; 2) district court's summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claim is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on certain issues is reversed; and 4) award of sanctions is vacated because the magistrate judge unreasonably imposed them in response to plaintiff's discovery requests.
Butler v. Village of Round Lake Police Dep't (No. 08-3856)
Decision Date: October 27, 2009
In plaintiff-police officer's ADA claim against defendant-village, dismissal of his case on the ground of judicial estoppel is affirmed where: 1) to succeed on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show that with or without reasonable accommodations, he can perform the essential functions of his job; and 2) here, accepting plaintiff's sworn testimony before the pension board as true, the court could not see how he could perform essential police functions with or without accommodations.
Sherwood v. Marquette Transp. Co., LLC (No. 09-2045)
Decision Date: November 23, 2009
In plaintiff′s suit against his employer under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries he suffered while working as a deckhand, defendant-employer′s appeal of a district court′s denial of its motion to stay the suit in favor of arbitration is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a)(1)(A) as: 1) section 16 is part of the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, under the language of section 1, does not apply to any employment contract involving a seaman; and 2) section also is inapplicable, and defendant′s motion for a stay did not rely on it.
Musch v. Domtar Indus., Inc. (No. 08-4305)
Decision Date: November 25, 2009
In plaintiff′s suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeking compensation for the time spent changing clothes and showering at the end of each work shift at defendant\′s paper mill, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs′ daily post-shift activities are done under normal conditions and are merely postliminary non-compensable activities; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff\′s motion to reconsider in concluding that plaintiff merely rehashed the arguments he had made at summary judgment and failed to present evidence of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6).
Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars, Ltd. (No. 09-1181)
Decision Date: December 21, 2009
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by truck drivers against a wholesale importer and distributor of wine claiming that they were not paid overtime, judgment for the defendant is affirmed as the portion of the transportation that is entirely within Illinois is nevertheless interstate commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act and therefore, the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from its overtime provisions any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of title 49.
Turner v. Saloon, Ltd. (No. 07-2449)
Decision Date: February 8, 2010
In plaintiff's employment discrimination suit against his former employer, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the judgment of the district court is affirmed to the extent that it dismissed plaintiff's ADA claims, his overtime claims, and his Title VII retaliation claim; but 2) judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiff's hostile-workplace claim based on alleged sexual harassment is reversed and remanded as the court dismissed the claim after excluding most of the alleged instances of harassment as time-barred, contrary to Supreme Court precedent establishing that in a hostile-workplace claim, acts of harassment falling outside Title VII's statute of limitations may be considered as long as some act of harassment occurred within the limitations period.
Bailey v. Pregis Innovative Packaging, Inc. (No. 09-3539)
Decision Date: April 2, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. section 2601, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that she is entitled to toll the 12-month period for the 56 days during that period in which she was on FMLA leave is rejected as there is no basis for such a contortion of the statute; and 2) plaintiff's argument that the defendant retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave fails as defendant's no-fault attendance policy is a lawful method of determining whether an employee has a sufficiently strong commitment to working for his employer to wipe an absence off his record, and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that commitment.
Alvarez v. City of Chicago (No. 09-2020)
Decision Date: May 21, 2010
In two lawsuits against the City of Chicago brought by paramedics, claiming that it willfully failed to properly compensate them for overtime, district court's grant of the City's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded as, the district court erred in dismissing the claims of the named plaintiffs as they have the right to proceed individually.
Goelzer v. Sheboygan County (No. 09-2283)
Decision Date: May 12, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former county employer for her termination two weeks before she was scheduled to begin two months of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), claiming the employer interfered with her right to reinstatement under the Act and retaliated against her for taking FMLA leave, summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as plaintiff has put forth enough evidence for this case to reach a trier of fact, including comments suggesting her supervisor's dissatisfaction with her use of FMLA leave, her positive performance reviews, and the timing of her termination.
Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr. (No. 09-3661)
Decision Date: July 21, 2010
In a Title VII action claiming that a nursing home's practice of acceding to the racial biases of its residents was illegal and created a hostile work environment, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the racial preference policy violated Title VII by creating a hostile work environment; and 2) issues of fact remained over whether race motivated plaintiff's discharge.
Sottoriva v. Claps (No. 09-1311)
Decision Date: August 17, 2010
District court's reduction of an Illinois Department of Human Rights employee's fee award by 67%, accounting for the partial success of the employee's suit against the Director of the Department and the Comptroller of the State of Illinois for withholding portions of his salary without an adequate hearing, is vacated and remanded as, although it was entirely proper for the district court to conclude that plaintiff achieved only "partial" success and that the lodestar figure should thus be reduced to reflect this fact, the district court provided insufficient reasoning in support of its judgment.
Xodus v. Wackenhut Corp. (No. 09-3082)
Decision Date: August 27, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against a security firm, claiming that it violated Title VII when it did not hire him as a security guard because plaintiff would not cut his dreadlocks, judgment that defendant did not engage in religious discrimination when it refused to hire plaintiff on account of his dreadlocked hairstyle is affirmed where: 1) the court's decision to credit the interviewing manager's testimony that plaintiff never informed him that religious belief required him to wear dreadlocks is both plausible from the evidence and sufficiently explained in the opinion; 2) plaintiff waived his claim that the district court erred by preventing him from testifying about his EEOC intake questionnaire; and 3) plaintiff's claims that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendant on the issue of whether he mitigated his damages and whether he was entitled to punitive damages are moot.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
EEOC v. Boeing Co. (No. 07-16903)
Decision Date: August 18, 2009
In a sex discrimination action by the EEOC, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where the EEOC introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the reasons defendant advanced to justify its employment actions were pretextual.
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka (No. 07-17116)
Decision Date: September 15, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by accessing plaintiff's computer without authorization, both while defendant was employed by plaintiff and after he left the company, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was authorized to use plaintiff's computers while he was employed by plaintiff, and thus he did not access a computer "without authorization" in violation of the applicable statutes when he emailed documents to himself and to his wife prior to leaving employment; and 2) plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant accessed plaintiff's website without authorization after he left the company.
Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (No. 08-35278)
Decision Date: September 28, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating plaintiff based on her failure to pass a physical capacity evaluation, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court erred in holding that the evaluation was not a medical examination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 12112(d)(4)(A).
Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc. (No. 07-36011)
Decision Date: October 2, 2009
In an action for unpaid wages under the Seamen's Wage Act, the district court's order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where claims under the Act are subject to arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and plaintiff's claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
Fleming v. Yuma Reg. Med. Ctr. (07-16427)
Decision Date: November 19, 2009
In an action for employment discrimination based on plaintiff′s disability, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794, extends to a claim of discrimination brought by an independent contractor because the Rehabilitation Act covers all individuals "subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co. (No. 08-15549)
Decision Date: December 11, 2009
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action alleging that defendant retaliated against plaintiff for complaining that his manager had discriminated against him based on his disability, an order denying plaintiff the right to seek compensatory and punitive damages is affirmed where the plain and unambiguous provisions of 42 U.S.C. section 1981a limited the availability of compensatory and punitive damages to those specific ADA claims listed, and retaliation was not on the list.
United Steel, Paper & Forestry Int'l. Union v. ConocoPhillips Co. (No. 09-56578)
Decision Date: January 6, 2010
In an action seeking compensation for defendant's alleged denial of employees' meal breaks, denial of class certification is reversed where the district court abused its discretion when it assumed, for the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certification analysis and without any separate inquiry into the merits, that plaintiffs' legal theory would fail.
Traxler v. Multnomah Cty. (No. 08-35641)
Decision Date: February 26, 2010
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action based on an allegedly wrongful termination, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where, under the FMLA, front pay is an equitable remedy to be determined by the court. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the district court erred in denying liquidated damages without making specific findings as to the employer's good faith conduct and reasonable belief that it was not violating the statute.
Rutti v. Vermillion (No. 07-56599)
Decision Date: March 2, 2010
In a class action on behalf of all technicians employed by defendant to install alarms in customers' cars, in which plaintiff sought compensation for the time technicians spent commuting to worksites in defendant\'s vehicles and for time spent on preliminary and postliminary activities performed at their homes, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) pursuant to the Employment Commuter Flexibility Act, use of an employer\'s vehicle to commute was not compensable even if it was a condition of employment; and 2) the conditions defendant placed on plaintiff's use of its vehicle did not make his commute compensable. However, the judgment is vacated in part where, on summary judgment, the district court could not determine that plaintiff\'s postliminary activities were not integral to plaintiff\'s principal activities.
Alcazar v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (No. 09-35003)
Decision Date: March 16, 2010
In an action seeking pay for the overtime hours plaintiff worked as a seminarian in a Catholic church in Washington, dismissal of the action is affirmed where the ministerial exception barred the claim because: 1) the First Amendment strongly circumscribed legislative and judicial intrusion into the internal affairs of a religious organization; 2) awarding damages would necessarily trench on the Church's protected ministerial decisions; and 3) plaintiff's complaint demonstrated that plaintiff was a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception.
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 04-16688)
Decision Date: April 26, 2010
In a Title VII action alleging discrimination against female employees by Wal-Mart, certification of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay is affirmed where: 1) it was within the district court's discretion, and in line with Falcon, to determine that the commonality prerequisite to class certification was satisfied; 2) decentralized, subjective decision making could contribute to a common question of fact regarding the existence of discrimination; and 3) because the discrimination they claimed to have suffered occurred through alleged common practice -- e.g., excessively subjective decision making in a corporate culture of uniformity and gender stereotyping--the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that their claims were sufficiently typical to satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). With respect to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages, and as to those class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart, the certification order is remanded so the district court could consider: 1) whether certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the punitive damages claims would cause monetary relief to predominate; and 2) whether an additional class or classes may be appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to the claims of former employees.
Porter v. Winter (No. 07-17120)
Decision Date: May 5, 2010
In an action challenging the amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff in Title VII administrative proceedings, dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where, under New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980), federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought solely to recover attorney's fees incurred in Title VII administrative proceedings.
Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's (No. 07-16094)
Decision Date: June 10, 2010
In plaintiff's appeal from the district court's court vacating an arbitral award on the ground of its excessive size and vacating a punitive damages award on the additional ground that the arbitration panel lacked jurisdiction to enter it after the panel had entered its compensatory award, the order is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that the size of the arbitration awards demonstrated manifest disregard of the law; 2) the fact that the majority of the arbitrators may have made a mistake in citing a benefit that plaintiff had not purchased did not establish irrationality of its ultimate conclusion that defendant breached its contract; 3) nothing in plaintiff's policy expressly withdrew determination of procedural issues from the panel; and 4) defendant failed to demonstrate either evident partiality or evident corruption in the arbitrators.
Breiner v. Nev. Dep't of Corr. (No. 09-15568)
Decision Date: July 8, 2010
In an action challenging the State of Nevada's policy of hiring only female correctional lieutenants at a women's prison, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) Title VII protects the ability to pursue one's own career goals without being discriminated against on the basis of race or sex, even if others of the same race or sex were not subject to disadvantage; and 2) defendants did not show that "all or nearly all" men would tolerate sexual abuse by male guards, or that it is "impossible or highly impractical" to assess applicants individually for this qualification.
Narayan v. EGL, Inc. (No. 07-16487.)
Decision Date: July 13, 2010
In an action seeking unpaid overtime wages, business expenses, meal compensation and unlawful deductions from wages under the California Labor Code, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where, under California's multi-faceted test of employment, there existed at the very least sufficient indicia of an employment relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant such that a reasonable jury could find the existence of such a relationship.
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc. (No. 08-15903)
Decision Date: August 16, 2010
In an action by flight attendants who were dismissed for sexual harassment, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by focusing on the inference of discrimination that was central to plaintiffs' case; and 2) even assuming the female flight attendants reported to the same supervisor as plaintiffs, the two groups were not similarly situated because the female employees' alleged conduct was not unwelcome and never resulted in a complaint.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. (No. 07-3997)
Decision Date: August 28, 2009
In an employment discrimination action under Title VII involving claims of gender stereotyping and religious harassment, district court\'s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated with respect to the gender stereotyping claim, as the record below is ambiguous as to whether the claim was based on sexual orientation or discrimination because of sex, and thus because both are plausible, the case presents a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary judgment. District court\'s grant of summary judgment on the religious harassment claim was proper as plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of his cause of action that there was intentional harassment because of religion.
Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania (No. 07-4023)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In plaintiff's gender and employment discrimination action alleging pay disparity against County-employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, district court's judgment that the Title VII claim is untimely as to paychecks plaintiff received after June 20, 2006, is reversed and remanded in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, where a failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied.
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (07-3796)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's case against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and for retaliation, summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) the record indicates that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant-Nationwide had constructive notice of hours plaintiff worked from home and thus, she was eligible for FMLA leave for purposes of summary judgment; 2) the version of section 825.110 in effect at the time of plaintiff's dismissal was invalid; 3) firing an employee for a valid request for FMLA leave may constitute interference with the employee's FMLA rights as well as retaliation against the employee; and 4) because no reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was fired because of her daughter's known disability, district court's summary judgment on her ADA claim is affirmed.
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group Inc. (No. 09-1105)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's race, national-origin, employment discrimination and retaliation action against defendant-former employer, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims in his second complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's federal claims are barred by res judicata because his section 1981 claims arise from the same set of facts as his Title VII claims which were dismissed in his first complaint. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim and dismissed without prejudice instead of dismissing that claim with prejudice.
Pignataro v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey (No. 08-3605)
Decision Date: January 27, 2010
In plaintiffs' suit against defendant-Port Authority under the FLSA, alleging they were denied proper overtime pay as helicopter pilots, summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) Port Authority helicopter pilots are not "learned professionals" and are not exempt from the provisions of the FLSA; 2) district court correctly concluded that Port Authority's violation of the FLSA was not willful, and that plaintiffs were thus entitled to only two years of back pay, not three; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiffs.
Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Servs., Inc. (No. 09-1635)
Decision Date: March 11, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for violation of the FMLA, summary judgment in favor employer is vacated and remanded as an employee may satisfy her burden of proving three days of incapacitation through a combination of expert medical and lay testimony. Here, when expert medical opinion of a doctor that plaintiff was incapacitated for two days because of her illness is combined with plaintiff's lay testimony that she was incapacitated for two additional days, it necessarily follows that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff suffered from a serious health condition.
Colwell v. Rite Aid Corp. (No. 08-4675)
Decision Date: April 8, 2010
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming constructive discharge based on plaintiff's partial blindness, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where no reasonable juror could find that the actions to which plaintiff referred made her workplace so unbearable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the ADA contemplated that employers may need to make reasonable shift changes in order to accommodate a disabled employee's disability-related difficulties in getting to work.
Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot (No. 08-4684)
Decision Date: April 12, 2010
In plaintiff's suit against several federal government defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, arising from a voluntary layoff from employment at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff did not demonstrate that the medications that were causing his problems were medically necessary, their side effects cannot be considered as impairments within the meaning of the ADA; 2) plaintiff's employers did not regard him as disabled within the meaning of the ADA; and 3) plaintiff could not have had a good faith belief that his side effects were anything but temporary, and therefore he could not have had a good faith belief that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
EEOC v. Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc. (No. 07-2419)
Decision Date: August 27, 2009
In an employment and sex discrimination case under Title VII, district court\'s judgment is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in not submitting plaintiff\'s claim for punitive damages to the jury and granting defendant judgment as a matter of law on that claim as under Title VII, punitive damages are available if a plaintiff shows that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights, and evidence presented by the EEOC at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk that it was violating plaintiffs\' Title VII rights; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying EEOC\'s request for injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy or retaliating against any employee who complains of unlawful discrimination as, in light of the two isolated instances of discrimination, there was not a consistent practice of discrimination suggesting further discrimination was likely; 3) court declined to address the district court\'s award of attorney\'s fees at this time as further proceedings are necessary on the issue of punitive damages.
Rush v. Perryman (No. 08-3148)
Decision Date: September 3, 2009
In former college president's action against the college's Board of Trustees alleging violation of his state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity is affirmed where plaintiff's employment was terminated in an open session of the Board for alleged misconduct including dishonesty - an accepted stigmatizing charge - and thus, plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated a violation of his clearly established due process right to a post-termination name-clearing hearing.
Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co. (No. 08-1036)
Decision Date: September 14, 2009
In an age discrimination action based on an alleged wrongful termination, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was evidence that people who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff evinced a preference for the employment of younger workers over persons in the class protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
White v. Nat'l Football League (No. 08-2001)
Decision Date: November 10, 2009
In a case involving whether, after NFL quarterback Michael Vick was convicted of dog fighting charges, his team was entitled to recover certain bonus money he earned, rulings against the NFL are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected the NFL's argument that Vick's roster bonuses were signing bonus allocations subject to the years-performed test; and 2) it did not err in determining that the bonuses were earned when Vick met the roster provisions in his contract, and were thus not subject to forfeiture pursuant to the terms of a settlement in an antitrust class action and the CBA. Moreover, the denial of the NFL's motion to recuse the district judge and terminate the consent decree is affirmed where 1) there was no indication that the NFL was restrained by any fear of antitrust liability; 2) the parties' agreement to the district court's involvement mitigated concerns about unsettling the power structure under the labor laws; and 3) the district judge's comments to the press did not create an appearance of partiality.
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. (No. 07-1490)
Decision Date: November 30, 2009
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action claiming that defendant demoted plaintiff because of his age, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the burden of persuasion should not have been shifted to the defendant in this ADEA case considering that plaintiff never set forth any direct evidence of age discrimination, and the jury instruction at issue impermissibly shifted the burden in such a manner.
Lewis v. Heartland Inns of Am., L.L.C. (No. 08-3860)
Decision Date: January 21, 2010
In a sex discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff's supervisor's criticism of plaintiff for lack of "prettiness" and the "Midwestern girl look" before terminating her could be found by a reasonable factfinder to be evidence of wrongful sex stereotyping; and 2) the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to offer evidence that similarly situated men were treated differently.
Parrish v. Ball (No. 08-3517)
Decision Date: February 10, 2010
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a sheriff's alleged failure to provide sexual harassment training to a subordinate, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the Arkansas Code did not impose a duty on the county to train its officers not to sexually assault detainees; and 2) there was nothing in the record suggesting that defendant received any notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by any of his subordinates.
Parrish v. Ball (No. 08-3517)
Decision Date: February 10, 2010
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a sheriff's alleged failure to provide sexual harassment training to a subordinate, judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) the Arkansas Code did not impose a duty on the county to train its officers not to sexually assault detainees; and 2) there was nothing in the record suggesting that defendant received any notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by any of his subordinates.
Lake v. Yellow Transp., Inc. (No. 09-1392)
Decision Date: March 2, 2010
In a race discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where: 1) plaintiff was not required to disprove defendant's reason for firing him at the stage of the analysis where plaintiff needed to show that he met his employer's legitimate expectations; and 2) there were material factual disputes over plaintiff's attendance and availability record, and whether defendant applied its policies equally.
EEOC v. Kelly Servs., Inc. (No. 08-3880)
Decision Date: March 25, 2010
In an action by the EEOC alleging that defendant employment agency discriminated against a Muslim by failing to refer her to an employer because of her refusal to remove her khimar for work, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the EEOC failed to show that the employer had an available position to which defendant could actually refer the candidate when she applied for available temporary work.
Frevert v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 09-2531)
Decision Date: July 20, 2010
In an action against Ford Motor Company alleging wrongful discharge under the Missouri common law public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff's complaint never alleged a violation of a specific legal provision and whether such legal provision involved a clear mandate of public policy, and plaintiff's belated affidavit discussing alleged violations of law directly contradicted both his complaint and interrogatories.
Fuller v. Fiber Glass Sys., L.P. (No. 09-2732)
Decision Date: August 25, 2010
In an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claiming discrimination (non-selection), harassment (supervisor and co-worker), and retaliation, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable juror could find that plaintiff did not unreasonably fail to take advantage of preventative/corrective opportunities offered by defendant, and thus defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense; 2) the testimony regarding plaintiff's emotional distress was sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to award plaintiff $65,000 in compensatory damages; and 3) any issue with the magistrate judge presiding over the punitive damages portion of the trial was moot.
Appeals from federal circuit (intermediate appellate level) courts and original hearing for disputes between states
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs. (08-604)
Decision Date: December 8, 2009
In an arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) between a railroad and a union regarding disciplinary action against certain employees, a circuit court's order reversing the NRAB's dismissal of the arbitration for failure to conduct a pre-arbitration conference is affirmed where, by refusing to adjudicate the cases on the false premise that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them, the NRAB panel failed to conform, or confine itself, to matters Congress placed within the scope of NRAB jurisdiction.
Lewis v. Chicago (No. 08-974)
Decision Date: May 24, 2010
In a Title VII action challenging Chicago's practice of selecting only applicants who scored 89 or above on a written examination because of its disparate impact on African-Americans, the Seventh Circuit's reversal of judgment for plaintiff is reversed where a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer's later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate impact claim.
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB (No. 08-1457)
Decision Date: June 17, 2010
In an appeal from the Seventh Circuit's denial of petitioners' petition for review of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) finding that petitioners committed unfair labor practices, the order is reversed where section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act requires that a delegee group of the NLRB maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.
Rent-A-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson (No. 09-497)
Decision Date: June 21, 2010
In an employment discrimination action, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the district court's dismissal of the action based on the parties' agreement to arbitrate is reversed where, under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada (No. 07-40325)
Decision Date: December 24, 2009
In an action alleging sex discrimination against the director of certain medical clinics, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the evidence of defendant's harassment of other parties was highly probative to demonstrating a systemic pattern of discrimination at the clinics and relevant to all plaintiffs; and 2) the court of appeals could not conclude that the hearsay testimony admitted by the district court had more than a slight effect on the jury's verdict. However, the judgment is reversed in part where one plaintiff's placement on a two-week probationary period did not rise to the level of a tangible employment action.
Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co. (No. 08-51175)
Decision Date: March 22, 2010
In an action claiming that the termination of plaintiff's employment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), partial judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that plaintiff was an "individual with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA, because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that he had an impairment, psoriatic arthritis, that substantially limited his major life activity of walking; 2) there was sufficient evidence that defendant's own actions reflected that attendance on scheduled days was not required to qualify for the position of flight attendant; and 3) a reasonable jury could have found defendant's proffered explanation for plaintiff's discharge was false and that the true reason was his disability.
Carmona v. Southwest Airlines Co. (No. 08-51175)
Decision Date: April 22, 2010
In an action claiming that the termination of plaintiff's employment violated Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), judgment as a matter of law for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that he was substantially limited in the major life activity of walking; and 2) there was no dispute that plaintiff was able to perform the essential functions of his job as a flight attendant when he showed up to work. In addition, the district court's order denying reinstatement is vacated in light of the Fifth Circuit's holding that it was error to grant defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Gagnon v. United Technisource Inc. (No. 09-20098)
Decision Date: May 28, 2010
In an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) based on defendants' failure to increase plaintiff's "per diem" hourly rate, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) when, as here, the amount of per diem varies with the amount of hours worked, the per diem payments are part of the regular rate in their entirety; 2) there was no clear error in the district court's finding that the violation was willful; and 3) in paying the per diem, defendant did not pay plaintiff any additional sums that could be characterized as advanced or inappropriate amounts subject to an offset against the overtime owed to him. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to provide additional explanation for its awards and with specific instructions to include time spent on this appeal in determining the amount of attorney's fees.
Startran, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Comm. (No. 09-60263)
Decision Date: June 9, 2010
In a petition for review of a determination by the Occupational Safety and Health Commission (the Commission) that petitioner was not exempt from the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) under the provision of 29 U.S.C. section 652(5) stating that for purposes of the Act "'employer' . . . does not include . . . any . . . political subdivision of a State," the petition is granted where, under 29 C.F.R. section 1975.5(b)(2), petitioner was "administered by individuals who are controlled by public officials and responsible to such officials" and was thus exempt from OSHA.
Saenz v. Harlingen Med. Ctr., L.P. (No. 09-40887)
Decision Date: August 3, 2010
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action based on plaintiff's alleged termination due to her epilepsy, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court erred when it held plaintiff to defendant's heightened in-house procedure, and further, plaintiff provided the minimum required notice under FMLA's default requirements.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
Stone v. Instrumentation Lab. Co. (No. 08-1970)
Decision Date: December 31, 2009
In an employment retaliation action under the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss in favor of remand to the appropriate administrative body for further proceedings is vacated and remanded as the plain language of section 1514A(b)(1)(B) unambiguously establishes a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower complainant's right to de novo review in federal district court if the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision and the statutory 180-day period has expired
Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc. (No. 08-2256)
Decision Date: December 29, 2009
In an action brought by employees and their union against a poultry processing plant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), judgment of the district court in favor of defendant is affirmed as the activity of donning and doffing protective gear constitutes "changing clothes" within the meaning of section 203(o) and is therefore not compensable under the prevailing customs or practices at the plant.
King v. McMillan (No. 08-1667)
Decision Date: February 3, 2010
In plaintiff-former deputy's suit against a sheriff in his official capacity under Title VII for sexual harassment and in his individual capacity under Virginia law for battery, district court's substitution of new sheriff as the defendant in her official capacity in the Title VII claim and jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed as to accept defendant's argument that because each sheriff in Virginia is by state law a singular entity with an independent tenure, she could not be substituted in her official capacity as the successor to the former sheriff in the Title VII claim, would be to allow a state law to override Title VII in violation of the Supremacy Clause. Defendants' remaining challenges are rejected.
Whitten v. Fred's, Inc. (No. 09-1265)
Decision Date: April 1, 2010
In plaintiff's claims against her former employer for sexual harassment under the South Carolina Human Affairs Law, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff properly exhausted the state administrative remedies; 2) plaintiff's lawsuit was timely filed; 3) judicial estoppel does not preclude plaintiff from pursuing her claims against defendant because she disclosed her potential claim against the defendant in her bankruptcy petition; 4) plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to require a trial on her sexual harassment claims, including her claim that she was constructively discharged; and 5) on remand, the defendant will be entitled to assert the affirmative defense to liability and damages as set forth by the Supreme Court in Faragher and Ellerth as, although defendant is subject to vicarious liability for the supervisor's conduct, there was no tangible employment action and no official act precipitating the asserted constructive discharge.
Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (No. 09-1498)
Decision Date: April 9, 2010
In a suit brought after plaintiff-truck driver was terminated from her employment claiming sex discrimination under Title VII when defendant allegedly fired her due to a discriminatory belief that women were incapable of performing the duties of her position, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff presented a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant's proffered legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for her termination (failing a physical ability test following an ankle injury) was "pretext for discrimination."
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Fairbrook Med. Clinic, P.A. ( No. 09-1610)
Decision Date: June 18, 2010
In an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) suit on behalf of plaintiff-doctor against her former employer for creating a hostile work environment because of plaintiff's sex, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded as the EEOC has presented an issue of triable fact as what happened was not merely general crudity but a series of graphic remarks of a highly personal nature directed at a female employee by the sole owner of an establishment.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
Myers v. Central Fla. Invs., Inc. (No. 08-16291)
Decision Date: January 6, 2010
In a battery and sexual harassment action, partial judgment for plaintiff and for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show that the compensatory award for emotional damages equal to a claimant's annual income evinced prejudice, passion or corruption on the part of the jury; 2) the $506,847.75 punitive award bore a reasonable relationship both to the harm plaintiff suffered and to the harm likely to result should defendants not be penalized now; and 3) plaintiff was not a prevailing party on her Title VII claim and thus was not entitled to attorney's fees.
Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs. Huntsville, Inc. (No. 08-16656)
Decision Date: January 12, 2010
In an action claiming that defendant-employer made an improper medical inquiry in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) 42 U.S.C. section 12112(d)(2) did not limit coverage to applicants who were also "qualified individuals with disabilities"; and 2) while the district court correctly concluded that employers may conduct follow-up questioning in response to a positive drug test, it failed to acknowledge any limits on this type of questioning.
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (No. 07-10270)
Decision Date: January 21, 2010
In a hostile work environment action based on the frequent use of gender derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group in the workplace, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the evidence was sufficient to afford the inference that the offending conduct was based on the sex of the employee.
Mora v. Jackson Mem. Found., Inc. (No. 08-16113)
Decision Date: February 23, 2010
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a reasonable juror could accept that plaintiff's supervisor made discriminatory-sounding remarks and that the remarks were sufficient evidence of a discriminatory motive which was the "but for" cause of plaintiff's dismissal.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in the District of Columbia
Miller v. Hersman (No. 08-5494)
Decision Date: February 5, 2010
In a sex and age discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) defendant failed to carry its burden to show that plaintiff did not timely contact an EEO counselor and thus did not exhaust his administrative remedies; and 2) plaintiff did not fail to respond to defendant's exhaustion argument.
Schuler v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (No. 08-7115)
Decision Date: February 16, 2010
In an action against an accounting firm alleging that the firm refused to make plaintiffs partners because of their ages, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff did not make out a claim under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because he failed to bring a claim involving \"discrimination in compensation\" and point to a \"discriminatory compensation decision or other practice\"; and 2) plaintiff failed to provide any basis upon which a reasonable jury could disbelieve defendant\'s primary explanation for not making him a partner. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff could state a claim under the New York Human Rights Law by alleging that a discriminatory act occurred in New York.
Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan (No. 08-5155)
Decision Date: April 16, 2010
In an action by an attorney at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) alleging that HUD retaliated against him in violation of Title VII by transferring him to a non-legal position and by declaring him absent without leave when he failed to report to his new job, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where defendant reasonably concluded that approving plaintiff's leave under the circumstances would set a bad precedent for other employees. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) a reasonable jury to question plaintiff's supervisor's credibility and therefore the legitimacy of HUD's proffered reason for the transfer; and 2) a reasonable jury could conclude that the transfer qualified as an adverse employment action.
McFadden v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP (No. 08-7140)
Decision Date: June 29, 2010
In an action against a law firm alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court correctly held that plaintiff produced insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to hold pretextual defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reasons for not reassigning her and for terminating her. However, the judgment is reversed in part where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was prejudiced by the alleged interference with her FMLA rights.
Mogenhan v. Napolitano (No. 08-5457)
Decision Date: July 27, 2010
In an action against the Secret Service claiming that it violated the Rehabilitation Act by retaliating against plaintiff for filing a discrimination complaint and by failing to reasonably accommodate her disability, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where there was no genuine dispute that the Service reasonably accommodated plaintiff's disability. However, the ruling is reversed in part on the ground that the retaliatory actions plaintiff alleged might well have dissuaded a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
